Talk:Lloyd E. Rader Sr.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Oklahoma Low‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography at http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/R/RA001.html seems to prove notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue with the 'encyclopedia' link. Even though it's not a real "encyclopedia" it is a perfectly usable source. The other sources are under lock and need a subscription to access, so they can't be used without the full text viewable or archived somewhere so it can actually be verified. Sorry, but with such inflammatory statements being made about someone listed in an article with no verification to the claim, I have to put the PROD back on. Please don't think I'm disagreeing with your changes or that I'm hellbent on destroying the article, but there still needs to accessible citations. More likely than not I'm sure the article will end up in a perfectly usable form, but I can't ignore its current state, either. If text to those sources can be given and the claims are then verifiable, I have no problems on notability.

There is still the lingering issue of this article being created by a user with the same name as a company run by one of the producers of documentary content that (allegedly) exposed this person's misdeeds. Considering that, the non-neutral point of view isn't at all surprising and I have to follow through on that. Was there a criminal investigation? Did this person admit to it? Arrested and put on trial? Without something that concrete, it is just conjecture. Only one non-news source wouldn't really do it either. Those are very serious things. The encyclopedia source even specifically says he was forced to retire without any more specifics-- okay, suspicious, but we do need to play by general code of conduct and code of justice here. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in The Oklahoman

A reliable source behind a paywall is still a reliable source. A source available only in print is still a reliable source,

You may find it helpful to review the coverage of Rader in The Oklahoman at this search page. Even thought the full text of the articles is behind a paywall, the excerpts are enough to give a reasonable understanding of the circumstances that led to Rader's resignation (which was referred to as retirement, but was clearly a resignation under pressure). It would be helpful to have more coverage of Rader's early days at the department, but I don't know where to find that coverage. -- Eastmain (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, since I'm out of ideas also, the locked things are fine. After reading through a thousand WP:V discussions on related things, the general opinion is something along the lines of "if it's a very notable source" = ok, random publications = not ok, extra quotations = good. I have no idea why there isn't an official policy on this yet since this is becoming a progressively more common type of source... but no discussion is definitive, some contradict one another. I think what I can take out of it is, so long as I'm the one objecting and I then later say WP:AGF on it all, that counts as it being verified/reliable. The inverse of this would be... if someone didn't assume good faith and took a vacation to Oklahoma to the newspaper's offices for a copy, apparently? I have no idea, but good enough. Since I have no reason to doubt that newspaper, that works.

Thanks for putting up with me. I'm just... particular about tying up all loose ends and feel a ridiculous duty to follow through on an article so long as I have any concerns. ...I'm not disagreeing about the "why he resigned" bit, but instead I picked being a really annoying devil's advocate by trying to make it foolproof. I'm sure you understand that not everyone would be able to read between the lines on it and even then it's technically able to be challenged. ...Why can't everyone that picks up articles for cleanup be a reasonable as you've been with that? Ha. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]